No. God does not stop offering pardon. That's never the problem. God is always willing to forgive if the guilty party is willing to repent. However, resistance to the Holy Spirit will eventually result in one's being unable to repent.



As I answered before, they won't sin in the sense that God won't sin, in that it is contrary to their character. But if they did sin, there's no reason why they couldn't repent. We have Moses as an example.

A person who loves God would not wish to sin, because this causes God pain. If he did sin, however, he would repent immediately. This is just what Moses did.



The unpardonable sin is the gradual hardening of the heart. There's ample evidence of this. First of all, there are the statements of the SOP I presented. Secondly, there are many examples of this, including Satan himself, the very being we've been discussing! Thirdly, there are no counter-examples, which you admit. Rather than consider these points you are wildly speculating regarding Jesus Christ things about which we have no evidence whatsoever. You're simply asserting ideas as facts with no foundation whatsoever.



I don't see why you think this point is worth making. I've made this same point many, many times, and quoted this exact text. There's only a few places where Lucifer's fall is discussed by the SOP. The principle ones are GC, PP, 4SP. I would think that given the amount of time we have been discussing this, you would have read these by now. The account in GC also quotes this text. So does the PP one.



Ok, let's say we agree with this point. This is page 316 of 4SP, several pages before page 319, when he made his final decision to rebel.



No it doesn't fail to do so.



This corresponds to 4SP 319. From 4SP 316 (which corresponds to GC 493/494) to 4SP 319/320 (which corresponds to GC 495/496) Lucifer was sinning. Again and again God offered Lucifer pardon for his iniquity, or sin, or transgression, whichever you prefer to call it.



MM, as I've pointed out many, many times now, this is proved by the following:



It says he was given an opportunity to confess his sin. This means that he sinned! He could not have confessed his sin if he had not sinned. It also means this sin was not unpardonable sin God offered to pardon Him for it!



This is clearly a questionable conclusion. It's not until several pages later that Lucifer was banished from heaven, during which period we are told that "God bore long" with Lucifer, and he was offered pardon "again and again."



I'm glad you think I'm entitled to steadfast reject the testimony of others who agree with you. I don't know why you feel this is a point worth making. If you wish to discuss God's foreknowledge, why not do so on the "God of the possible" thread, which is the proper place for this.



You are arguing the following:

1.The Bible is silent on a subject Ellen White comments on.
2.Therefore Ellen White cannot be "contradicting" the Bible's silence on the matter.

If the Bible doesn't say something about a matter, it's not possible for the SOP to contradict it!

At what point were the angels incapable of repenting? And, did God stop offering them pardon at that point? Also, in the case of the angels, what is the difference between sinning and rebelling? Somewhere you said rebelling made the angels unpardonable.


Do you apply this logic to the 144,000 during JTOT? That is, would they be able to sin and repent after Jesus ceases mediating on their behalf?


Whatever. You still didn't answer my question. Do you believe Jesus could have sinned and repented like the rest of us? I mean, do you think it was theoretically possible? Also, I cited A&E as examples of people whose first sin was unpardonable had God not implemented the plan of salvation. The fact God chose to implement the plan of salvation does not void the point.


Whatever. The point is you asked me to note something in the quotes you posted which didn't exist. No big deal. I brought it up so that someone else reading it wouldn't be confused.


I'm not following you here. What is your point.


You are speculating, Tom. But even if what you think is true, that is, even if God did offer to pardon Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning, nowhere in the Bible do we read about God actually pardoning someone without also requiring the blood of Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible is creature repentance and submission sufficient for God to pardon sinners.


The record reflects God offering to pardon Lucifer up to the point he openly rebelled, which happened the instant he rejected God's final appeal. It stands to reason God did not continue making the offer afterward. What made the difference? Why was Lucifer pardonable one minute and not the next?

I believe, as the record also reflects, God did not count Lucifer's behavior as sinful until the instant he was fully convinced that to pursue his course further would constitute rebellion. Until that moment Lucifer was unclear as to the nature of his thoughts and feelings. He had not wholly cast off his allegiance to God. But the instant he chose to press on, even though he was convinced it would be sinful to do so, is the instant he became guilty of the unpardonable sin. Thus, his first sin was unpardonable.


You are confusing the facts. I am here talking about Ezekiel 28 - not the SOP quotes. I addressed them above.


This is the proper place. My observations deserve an answer here. Since God knew Lucifer was going to sin and rebel and lead A&E in the same path, why, then, did God go through the motions of offering to pardon him? Was He hoping Lucifer would meet the conditions of pardon? Do you apply the following words to God: "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, [then] do we with patience wait for [it]."


Cute, Tom, but cute doesn't cut it. God has never pardoned a sinner without also requiring the substitutionary blood of Jesus. That's the biblical fact Ellen does not contradict. But that's not the only problem. It's what you attempt to do with it. (Please read on. Don't stop here and treat this last sentence as wholly baffling to you. It is part and parcel of the following insights).

You are attempting to infer from your curious interpretation of Ellen's comments about Lucifer that Jesus did not have to die to earn the right to pardon earthly sinners. In so doing you seem to assume men and angels were on the same footing when they fell. But this clearly is not the case. The case of each is so vastly different that nothing can be gained from treating them as equals.

The fact A&E would have would have suffered the death penalty in consequence of their first sin, had God not implemented the plan of salvation, is convincing evidence of how unrelated and dissimilar are the cases of men and angels - that is, if we accept your theory about the case of angels, namely, that angels were allowed to indulge sinning repeatedly for many years without requiring a special plan to avoid the death penalty.

In spite of the critical differences that exist between the two cases, you seem all to willing to ignore them in an attempt to push your pet theory - that the case of angels proves the substitutionary death of Jesus is not needed for God to earn the legal right to pardon penitent humans. How do you justify making this comparison and application?

Only God knows.



There is never any lack of willingness on God's part to offer pardon. However, if a being has rejected the pardon, there comes a time when there's no longer any point to continue offering it, wouldn't you agree?



Rebelling would make anyone unpardonable if continued long enough. The difference between sinning and rebelling has to do with whether one is sinning ignorantly or defiantly.



I'm not understanding what point your wishing to make here. I think I've already answered your question. I don't see why being close to God would make one less able to repent, which seems to be your thought. It makes one less likely to need to repent, since one is less likely to sin, but if one did sin, one would be *more* likely to repent, not less.



Whatever? That's not very respectful.



Again, I think this is speculative. Why not stick to the points upon which we have evidence. Are you aware of anything that tells us if Christ could or could not have repented had He sinned? I'm not.



In other words, it was unpardonable had God not been willing to pardon it.



Yes, if God had not been willing to pardon their sin, it is true that it would have been unpardonable.



There it is again!



No I'm not. She says, "Again and again he was offered pardon." That's not speculation.



MM, if you wish to have a conversation based solely in Scripture, that's fine. But you are the one who brought up the SOP. You've tried to argue from her writings that Christ's death was necessary to give God the legal right to offer pardon. So I have presented a counter-example to this claim. God offered Lucifer pardon again and again. The fact that the Bible doesn't comment on this point in regards to the fall of Lucifer is immaterial. The SOP says a great deal that the Bible doesn't say about the fall of Lucifer.



You bypassed the point. It says that Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin." Therefore it was pardonable. Therefore you are wrong to assert that the moment Lucifer sinned that sin was unpardonable.



That's impossible, MM. Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin." Had he done so, he would have been pardoned. Not only that, he would have been restored to the position he had left.



I'm not confusing the facts. Ellen White quoted Ezek 28 at the beginning of the description of Lucifer's fall. Several pages of activity follow. It wasn't until quite awhile after the Ezek 28 occurred that Lucifer committed the unpardonable sin, which is after God had repeatedly offered Lucifer pardon. Therefore your conclusion is questionable.



I disagree. We're discussing God's foreknowledge on another thread. Why not ask Daryl for his opinion? If he agrees with you, that this is the proper place, I'll be happy to answer.



Are you having a bad day? A couple of "whatevers" and now this? My argument wasn't "cute"; it brought up a valid point. Your argument is based on something the Bible doesn't say, and on Ellen White's not contradicting the Bible. That's not a valid way to argue. There's all sort of things the Bible doesn't say. You can't argue that since Ellen White doesn't contradict the Bible, the converse of that thing must be true. For example, the Bible does not say the monkeys have 8 legs. The fact that Ellen White does not contradict the Bible does not mean that monkeys have 8 legs. Your argument is unsound.



Because it disproves your logic. Your logic is that because the law demands death for sin, that pardon cannot be offered without death. The law would demand death for sin just as much for an angel as for a man. Since God actually did offer Lucifer pardon for his sin, it follows that God can offer pardon without death.

Yes, of course. His first sin would have been unpardonable. No doubt about it. Listen:

Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope. {FLB 49.5}


You are missing the point. The fact their first sin required a plan to pardon, which required the substitutionary death of Jesus, is evidence their first sin was enough to be punishable by death.


But even if what you think is true, that is, even if God did offer to pardon Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning, nowhere in the Bible do we read about God actually pardoning someone without also requiring the blood of Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible is creature repentance and submission sufficient for God to pardon sinners. Why do you think that is?


It stands to reason God did not continue making the offer after Lucifer rejected the final appeal. What made the difference? Why was Lucifer pardonable one minute and not the next?


It's responses like this one that elicit the occasional “whatever”! I did not say God cannot “offer” to pardon sinners before Jesus died on the cross. What I am saying is that God has never pardoned a sinner without the death of Jesus.

PS - The idea that Lucifer sinned in heaven and that God was willing to pardon him without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus has no basis in truth. The fact you cannot post a single inspired passage to substantiate this audacious claim is evidence against it.

Also, the fact God foresaw Lucifer sinning and rebelling and rejecting His offers of pardon and leading A&E to sin and rebel make it clear God offered pardon solely to eliminate any chance of self-justification in judgment. That he "might be left without excuse"! The idea that God didn't know if Lucifer would reject His offers of pardon so He kept offering it hoping he would is totally unsound. God is omniscient. He knows everything. He does not do things hoping it will turn out favorably. Hope if for those who don't know everything.

Ok, this makes sense. Sin causes us to think things about God which are not true. When Adam sinned, it was possible for him to be drawn back to God by Christ. However, had Christ sinned, who would have been Him back to God?



This can't be the case, because if it were the same thing would be true regarding Lucifer.



This is misleading, the most misleading part being that God requires the blood of Jesus. The Bible doesn't teach that God requires the blood of Jesus. There's no text that says, "God requires the blood of Jesus." There are texts which say things like "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." However, this begs the question as to why not. You can suggest it is because God has no legal right to forgive sin without the death of Christ, or that God requires it, or whatever, but these are simply things you are suggesting. There is no statement from Scripture which says that God requires blood.



You're phrased this in a weird way. That's probably why.

Here's something the Bible says: God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.



Given the following, this seems an odd conclusion to make:





Twice in one post isn't "occasional."

I didn't say that God cannot offer to pardon sinners before Jesus died on the cross, but that pardon cannot be offered without death. Since you are claiming not to have said what I am stating as your logical position, may I conclude that you agree with me? That is, you agree that God can offer pardon without death?



??? I've quoted the following many times:



[quoite]Satan had excited sympathy in his favor by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. (4SP 319)[/quote]



This certainly paints God is a negative light. I believe God offered the pardon in good faith.



God knows everything knowable. This is similar to saying God is all-powerful, which implies He can do anything which can be done. But logical impossibilities, such as knowing the future to be some way it isn't, or being able to make square circles, neither make God not omniscient nor not omnipotent.

I really don't see how this ties into the discussion in any way, however. That God was willing to pardon Lucifer without death is easily seen by the fact that He offered Lucifer pardon without death enabling Him to do so. That settles the question right there. There's no need to discuss His omniscience.

1. Good. I'm glad we agree Jesus' first sin would have been unpardonable. But this would have been true from the cradle to the cross. That is, even as a child Jesus' first sin would have been unpardonable. Which, of course, begs to differ with the reason you gave as to why Jesus could not sin without it being unpardonable. As a child Jesus did not know the Father so well that further revelations would have been unfruitful. Jesus had much to learn about the Father. He was not born with complete knowledge of God. Thus, according to the reason you cited, Jesus could have sinned and then been won back to God through the revelations of God's love and character He had not yet received. There must be, then, a different reason why Jesus could not sin and repent, a different reason why it is possible for people to be at a state where they cannot sin and repent. I have already explained my reason why, which you have summarily rejected. Do you have a different reason why it is possible for people to be at a state where they cannot sin and repent.

2. The fact A&E's first sin required a plan to pardon, a plan which required the substitutionary death of Jesus, is evidence their first sin was enough to be punishable by death. In response to this you wrote, "This can't be the case, because if it were, the same thing would be true regarding Lucifer." In so saying, are you implying the plan to pardon and save the human race did not require the death of Jesus? Are you also implying their first sin did not incur the death penalty? Listen: "The instant man accepted the temptations of Satan, and did the very things God had said he should not do, Christ, the Son of God, stood between the living and the dead, saying, "Let the punishment fall on Me. I will stand in man's place. He shall have another chance" (Letter 22, Feb. 13, 1900). {1BC 1085.2}

3. But even if what you think is true, that is, even if God did offer to pardon Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning, nowhere in the Bible do we read about God actually pardoning someone without also requiring the blood of Jesus. In response to this you wrote, "There are texts which say things like 'without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.' However, this begs the question as to why not. . . There is no statement from Scripture which says that God requires blood." Except for the one you just cited. You even admit that it begs the question as to why God remits no sin without blood. Both your quote and question indicate you agree God does indeed require blood to pardon sin. Thus, you should have no problem agreeing with what I posted above - ". . . nowhere in the Bible do we read about God actually pardoning someone without also requiring the blood of Jesus." You believe it is because Jesus' death was required to inspire and motivate sinners to love and obey God; whereas, in addition to this reason I add because death must happen in consequence of sin to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice as established by God from eternity.

4. Nowhere in the Bible is creature repentance and submission sufficient for God to pardon sinners. Why do you think that is? In response to this you wrote, "You're phrased this in a weird way. That's probably why." How does a weird way of phrasing it make it so? It is true no matter how weird one might state it. I suspect you misread what I wrote. Is that possible? I'll rephrase the point just in case it is still baffling to you. Nowhere in the Bible is repentance and submission sufficient for God to pardon sinners without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. Do you agree? If not, please post passages which portray God pardoning and saving sinners without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus.

5. It stands to reason God did not continue making the offer after Lucifer rejected the final appeal. In response to this you wrote, "Given the following, this seems an odd conclusion to make:" Did you misread what I wrote? The reason I ask is because I know you believe God did not continue offering to pardon Lucifer after the final appeal.

6. I did not say God cannot “offer” to pardon sinners before Jesus died on the cross. What I am saying is that God has never pardoned a sinner without the death of Jesus. In response to this you wrote, "That is, [do] you agree that God can offer pardon without death?" He can offer it before Jesus died on the cross. Otherwise, no, God cannot offer to pardon sin without a plan in place which makes pardon possible. God can offer to pardon sin on condition Jesus will pay the sin debt of death. But you didn't address the actual point I was made, namely, God has never pardoned a sinner without the death of Jesus. How do you explain this?

7. The idea that Lucifer sinned in heaven and that God was willing to pardon him without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus has no basis in truth. The fact you cannot post a single inspired passage to substantiate this audacious claim is evidence against it. The quotes you posted without personal comment did not refute my point. The absence of something is neither evidence for or against it. The weight of evidence supports my point. That is, God has never pardoned sin without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. This is the weight of evidence I'm referring to.

8. Also, the fact God foresaw Lucifer sinning and rebelling and rejecting His offers of pardon and leading A&E to sin and rebel make it clear God offered pardon solely to eliminate any chance of self-justification in judgment, that he "might be left without excuse"! Your idea that God offered to pardon Lucifer's many sins "in good faith" seems unsound to me. It assumes God did not know how it would play out. It portrays God crossing His fingers, hoping things would turn out favorably, but having no idea if it would. This does not represent God as someone who is in control.

Regarding 1., Jesus was a special case, being God as well as man. In regards to His humanity, we are told it is a mystery undisclosed to mortals how he remained sinless while very young, so it's hardly fruitful ground to try to construct an argument.



Sin results in death. This is true of any sin, (excluding sins of ignorance). Regarding the "this cannot be the case" statement, I was arguing against the idea that sin resulting in death (or sin's being punished, to use your language) is what necessitates the substitutionary death of Jesus, since if it were, this would apply to Lucifer's case as well.



If Lucifer had accepted the pardon, there would have been no Bible! So of course we don't read this in the Bible.



! No! That statement is not excepted. It says without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. It doesn't say, "God requires blood."

For thousands of years these sacrifices were offered without anyone having the idea that this was necessary in order to enable God to legally pardon us.



Then this should have applied to Lucifer's case as well.

Regarding 4, you worded things as if creature merit were involved, which is not something I've suggested.

Regarding 5, I think God offered Lucifer pardon for sin "again and again," and that the only reason he stopped doing so was that Lucifer had decided that he absolutely didn't want it. I may have misread what you wrote, but hopefully this will clarify my thought.

More later.

He would have had Lucifer accepted the offer of pardon.



My question is not a time based question. I'm not asking if God could offer pardon before Christ died on the cross, but if He could do so without the cross, as He did with Lucifer. Regarding your other question, you've asked this many times already, and the explanation is simple, as I explained, Lucifer did not accept the offer.



Sure it does. We have many pages describing the iniquity/sin/transgression Lucifer did, and that God offered him pardon again and again, without Christ's death ever even being mentioned.

8. involves a false premise, and, in addition, IMO, paints God in a very negative light.

1. No, Jesus is not a special case, at least not in the sense we are discussing. He grew and matured in His knowledge and understanding of God like any other human. As a child, therefore, His knowledge of God would have been less developed than as an adult. This being the case, and according to the reasoning you stated above, Jesus could have sinned and repented at any time before He acquired absolute complete knowledge of God. Is that what you believe? Also, this insight opens the door to ask: When do FMAs attain to a state when they can no longer sin and repent? Or, do they ever attain to such a state? Will it always be possible for them to sin and repent throughout eternity?